Let’s look at this above statement
How NASD think of Variable Annuities? Living consumer oriented product line is the benefit? National or distrust? you decide …
This top position NASD is the continued problems with variable pension industry because there is no official position on the eligibility and there is live marketing benefits for seniors / retirees who are led to buy risk of false security conveyed somehow money is not really in danger.
But if NASD is convinced Variable their pension no longer presents itself as a risk, within market products now because of all the added new enhanced living benefit guarantees? Then maybe they should ask the SEC to have it viewed as not risk products regulated by the NASD.
After all any product that uses the word guarantee as often as the Variable annuity sales presentation certainly will not be any risk to consumers.
I disagree with the above statement NASD and broad position that it is not a question of whether the product is good or bad? What is considered real compliance with the National Association of Securities Dealers? Only their products available are OK?
It is not good as now designed PEOPLE ARE misled by the use of the word is guaranteed RISK description … It’s not a product, but how it is being sold and every
Is this for real? Is it to be compatible?
It is a product of the current design which in itself exploited leads.The word insurance is a word that should never be allowed to be presented with a product risk. It conveys some kind of assurance that it is all right for you to buy this product if this that or the other thing happens, you will be okay! ! !
This problem will never go away because this “abuse of the meaning of insurance risk products.” Is this appropriate? Is this to be compatible? Is this commingle of product design and specifications?
Does NASD rules send out mixed signals? Are they now regulator ambitiousness? Are the rules of the exercise in contradictions? Why all the problems? Is this type of risk confusion as they come in Variable Annuity now reached the point beyond regulatory control?
This extra fee song you can buy back part of your loss / risk should not be allowed to use the same / similar way the word is used in a real loyalty from loss products. The only real guarantee is that you will have to pay fees …
It has the potential to export all the security of any real market loss when in fact there is none and again tries to change this risk Product Variable annuity with design and definition into anything it is not.
Real product risk should be highlighted not hidden in the design that can create this false sense of security product that has direct contact with the market and there is a real possibility of the loss for which the buyer what the senior or retiree.
Unacceptable meaning in product design definition is a real issue folks.
Once again the recent March 2006 decision found by the NASD that it’s okay for you to share you Variable annuity for another because of better living benefits. Is this their idea to be consistent?
Then they get upset with products offered to design avoided major losses and risks attack them as competition when in fact they are the ones who have decided to allow [commingle two different worlds product] loyalty from loss products vs risk products with so-called “living benefits” & really wonder why all so many complaints still abound. [jump ball vs Ping Pong Ball] Index Annuity vs Variable Annuity.
The NASD meant Index Annuity as a “jump ball product” this is a term that should be used to their “new Variable Annuity with living benefits” to allow a risk assessment product into something it is not .. ..a pretend to jump the risk of no risk with the introduction of the word insurance risk product.
I’m not really sure NASD is understood any real product issue.
boss had Index Annuities are just too complicated to understand! so based on this type of comments they not only could understand any real product differences true loyalty from loss products compared to Variable Annuity with living benefits? It might be time to review the pension basics for higher ranks instead misdirect attack and then attack some more.
accreditation process Index Annuities are not real issues NASD would like you to believe, although it does have many methods to reflect the potential for reward without risk to principal. It is not so difficult or confusing to almost 27 billion a year on the market in this safe product.
These different methods of accreditation are a great alternative choice for consumers. This is what is also known as fair competition between a single product or pension vehicle with another.Just as in all cases, not all safe Index annuity products are suitable for each customers needs.This why Index annuity is available in different accreditation procedures and also different time spans of participation.
There should not be an issue as NASD describes the two products are similar in risk etc. A Index pension is considered “safe money product” in a variable annuity is considered a “risk product” both by design and definition try to create confusion in this area NASD only tactic.
The Variable annuity has direct exposure to market risk as pension Index uses market performance external guide only without direct exposure to markets and head phone does not stop.
The NASD representative Variable annuity writer dodges suitability bullet of marketing Living Benefits in bulk to their consumers takes the position that because of the guaranteed living benefits all Suitability issues have been resolved is this safe thought for older and retirement needs?
The NASD as well as the SEC is willing to go with this BS .. a course where the next “major complaint is” it’s time to be fined ….. only in America. Complaints and fines will continue Variable annuity products it claims it is not in the way they are sold and to whom and what it claims it will do and it is after all not the perception of all sales.
Greed capture fixed rate real ensure market is now what caused all these problems to begin with and false benefit guarantees have been allowed to charge power of the public at risk product.
Living benefits are “misrepresentation of risk reality” created to increase fees and misleading guarantees that allow the abuse of the word guarantee serves only to create the illusion that you are not at risk product at all.
Guaranteed Minimum Withdrawal Benefit GMWB Guaranteed minimum Benefit GMIB
Guaranteed Minimum Accumulation Benefit GMAB Guaranteed Minimum Death GMDB.
I could go on and on. These fee based riders are designed to increase the cost of risk were given “talents in the buyer’s become guaranteed” to move them then think that by making the sale process, “money is not really in any danger at all”, but in reality is guaranteed from any market losses.
Now they have persuaded the SEC to join them in “witch hunts” begins in Florida to go after anyone gives “courses over” I guess looking for more fine money they can actually ‘t deciding retired are more at risk products for all their retirement money or can they?
The NASD has to clean up it’s own ceremony begins with insurance Variable Annuity bull first and SEC should be on their case also, instead of looking at those who are trying to protect older / retired from product which create false issues.
Why is there still so many complaints / fines, it is because the guarantees Don ‘t? and why they call it live than when death is required to collect a sum? If this was my retirement money I’m not so sure I would like to die or wait for the rest of my life to get back only what was put in ..
If someone Regulatory Agency to be NASD fined it for allowing this to continue.The pension industry flounders on any clear cut rules for older retiree safety regulators allow the State to set off their own style of interpretation of what is to be safe and considered appropriate or not etc.
Do they want to keep [all retirement dollars at risk in retirement? ] I do not think this type of thinking meets in fact the rules and Code of Ethical Market behavior?
State regulators can not really control security products already lean fairness has been created for a fixed / index as industry.
when it allowed this word “guaranteed” to bounce around the room Variable Annuity promotion without prejudice and what to get as much as any tennis ball knows all too well that any abuse of this word in any sales presentation for the product risk is all too easily lead to many misunderstandings can be created for any age group.
This should not be allowed to happen when dealing with any own retirement savings.
“living benefits” could be saved Variable annuity industry but at what cost?
Never has any product generated so much public distrust it really raised the NASD take a fortune in fines. They have allowed this problem to continue and are the only ones who can solve it. Take away the NASD ability to profit from fines and objectivity could back issues at hand.
Is Variable annuity Industry Today national distrust? 464 000 pages in only one browser below but it’s Index pension they want to take the heat! Why is it ……….
Have any risk products generate so much in fines for NASD ?? Do you abuse the word & Branding for guaranteed product has created this problem ?? The rate “NASD fines all” you would thing that they have only a total fool to market this amazing product risk.
I do not believe that at all but it is very obvious that the NASD has found a good thing with Variable Annuities in more ways then one. Some how the words control and or orchestrating have seem to create these not so impressive results achieved here. [464,000 pages complaint issues] on just one browser not a record I want to hang my hat on ….. question is actually paying for these remarkable results need to be asked?
Variable annuity Complaints Results 1 – 10 of about 464,000 for Variable annuity Complaints. (0.16 seconds) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Variable+Annuity+Complaints&btnG=Search